PRITAM SINGH Vs. THE COLLECTOR, BIJNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging an order of the Collector Bijnor dt. 31st January, 1971 whereby he cancelled his earlier, order dated 29th January, 1971 under which the petitioner had been granted a lease for minor minerals. Briefly the facts of the present case are that in October -November, 1970 the petitioner made an application to the Director of Minor Minerals, Lucknow for a lease for mining boulders, bajri and sand from certain plots situate in village Kunwa Khera Bawli and Rasulabad in district Bijnor. The Director granted permission to the petitioner to make the said application and the petitioner deposited necessary fees. The petitioner thereafter made an application in the prescribed form u/R. 5 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 along with a map of the locality for grant of mining lease for a period of three years and he also made a deposit of Rs. 300/ -. The Director of Minor Minerals sent the petitioner's application to the Collector, Bijnor for necessary orders. The Collector, who was exercising the powers conferred upon him u/R. 7 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, held an inquiry on the petitioner's application from the Sub -Divisional Officer, Nazirabad. After the necessary inquiry was held and reports were obtained, the Collector passed an order on 29th January, 1971 whereby he approved the grant of lease to the petitioner's efforts. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the Collector, on a complaint made by one Jalil Ahmad was of the opinion that the mineral rights should have been auctioned and, as such, on 31st January, 1971 he cancelled his earlier order dated 29th January, 1971. He further directed the officer in charge of mines to hold an auction for leasing out the mineral rights in the minor minerals. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the order of the Collector dated 31st January, 1971.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the order of the Collector is invalid on two grounds. Firstly, he has contended that the order of the Collector dated 31st January, 1971 was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to him. The order was passed behind his back, which violated principles of natural justice and, as such, it is void. Secondly, it has further been urged that the order dated 29th January, 1971 had been passed by the Collector u/R. 8 of the Rules. Hence, the petitioner was entitled to the execution of the mining lease u/Rr. 14 and 19 of the said rules. The Collector had no authority in law to put the mineral rights to auction, because no notification under R. 23 had ever been issued by the State Government, notifying in the gazette that the area in question be let out by auction. The order of the Collector directing the holding of auction, therefore, was wholly without any legal authority.

(3.) In the writ petition it has been stated that on inquiry the petitioner had come to know that the Collector had passed an order on 31st January, 1971 cancelling his previous order dated 29th January, 1971. On the basis of that information the petitioner challenged the order dated 31st January, 1971, a copy of which was not available to him. In para 13 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Collector, the order of the Collector has been quoted which shows that it was passed on 1st February, 1971 and not on 31 -1 -1971. The impugned order, therefore, was passed on 1st February, 1971, by the Collector cancelling his earlier order dated 29 -1 -1971.